Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gary Cooper/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC).

Gary Cooper

 * Nominator(s): Bede735 (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the American film actor Gary Cooper, noted for his natural, authentic, and understated acting style and screen performances. His career spanned thirty-six years, from 1925 to 1961, and included leading roles in eighty-four feature films. He was a major movie star from the end of the silent film era through the end of the golden age of Classical Hollywood. His screen persona appealed powerfully to both men and women, and his range of performances included roles in most major movie genres. Cooper's ability to project his own personality onto the characters he played contributed to his appearing natural and authentic on screen. The screen persona he sustained throughout his career represented the ideal American hero. Bede735 (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley
Support – As one of the peer reviewers. At an earlier stage in its history the article was long and, in parts, discursive. The nominator has since tightened it up admirably, and it is now comprehensive without being overlong. The prose is a pleasure to read, the sourcing and referencing are wide and thorough, the proportions and balance impeccable. I leave it to the experts to comment on the images, but as regards the text I am happy to support for FA. –  Tim riley  talk    18:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Collect
Oppose Undue coverage of Patricia Neal and abortion makes me quite concerned. The affair is of minor biographical value, and a couple of sentences would suffice. I say this as a person whose GA Joseph Widney was achieved by massive removal of "stuff". Collect (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I responded to your discussion on the Gary Cooper talk page, but I'll copy that response here for the reviewers. Cooper's love affair with Neal was well-publicized and documented in Neal's autobiography, as well as all of the Cooper biographies. By all accounts this was not a casual fling, but a serious relationship, which led to Cooper's three-year separation from his wife (which you also deleted)—a major event in his personal life. After his death, Cooper's daughter Maria reached out to Neal and helped her through a difficult time. A few sentences about their affair and the direct impact on his marriage is appropriate for this article. If the focus of your objection is the sentence on abortion, delete that one sentence. A fair argument can be made for its removal. Keep in mind that a number of editors have recently reviewed this article—GA and Peer Review—and it was not brought up. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this here and the article talk page. Bede735 (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Made edit on that basis - also removed an "also" etc. OK? Collect (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with your changes. Bede735 (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat
Support Another happy PR participant. This article is very well written, nicely balanced, covers all the aspects of Cooper's life I would expect it to, and is an enjoyable read throughout. Excellent work! - SchroCat (talk) 06:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Dr. Blofeld
Support I conducted the GA review for this and was happy with many of the improvements during and since with the peer review. There may still be too much personal life info for some people, but it is clearly very well researched and written and some readers will like the length.♦ Dr. Blofeld  12:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2
Support I have been making visits to this article since it's GA review and the article has improved to a great extent. My only comment is that it would be better to archive all newspaper and magazines article references to prevent dead links. Otherwise, great job! — Ssven2  speak 2 me 10:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Image review

 * File:Gary_Cooper_Signature.png: what is the original source for this?
 * I created the signature image from an autograph I found here: PSA (fourth image in the scroll). I added a link to the original source to the image page. Bede735 (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * File:For_Whom_The_Bell_Tolls_trailer.jpg: IMDb is not a good source for copyright status - check for renewals. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I replaced the link on the image page with one from TCM, also with no copyright notice. Bede735 (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Jonas Vinther
Support Having spend a lot of time on this article myself, I believe it's worth FA-status. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Jimknut
Any more concerns from me? Nope; Do I support this article? YUP! Jimknut (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Ian Rose
Coord note -- I can see this article has generated healthy interest (as one would hope). We still need a source review for formatting/reliability, as well as a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing given this is the nominator's first time at FAC. I'll post a request at WT:FAC for the former, perhaps Tim could look after the latter? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Happy to do a spot-check. I've just ordered the Dickens, Meyer and Swindell books at the British Library: they'll be ready for collection by mid-morning, when I'll toddle down and do the honours. I'll report back after lunch, I hope.  Tim riley  talk    08:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Spot-check
I've done a ten per cent check of the cited sources for accuracy and due avoidance of close paraphrase. Owing to a misunderstanding between me and the British Library (i.e. I screwed it up) I was working from a later edition of Meyers than the one used for the article, and the page numbers don't match. But I was able to check the statements attributed to Meyers in my sample, even if I can't vouch for the accuracy of the page numbers cited.
 * Meyers
 * Refs 42, 43, 59, 94, 124, 142, 153, 169, 197, 216, 231, 267, 289, 314, 330 and 396 are all fine for accuracy and absence of close paraphrasing.
 * Dickens
 * Refs 34, 41, 51, 97, 105, 118 (but see my next sentence), 160, 173, 183, 196, 213, 238, 243, 252, 258, 270, 296 and 404 are all fine. Ref 118 should ideally point to page 140 rather than 139, I think.
 * You're right, Tim. I made the correction. Bede735 (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Swindell
 * Refs 10, 13, 14, 17, 18, 36, 53, 72 (another page number query – see below), 93, 123, 164, 205 a & b, 293 a & b, 319, 343, 377, 389, and 420 (so far as I could tell without knowing what the nominator considers a cameo, and I'm quite happy to leave it at that) are all fine. Ref 72 should point to p. 122 rather than 123.
 * I made the correction. Bede735 (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

On the basis of the above, the article passes the spot-check admirably. –  Tim riley  talk    15:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to do this and for all your help at GA and PR. Sincerely, Bede735 (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Source review

 * Is Rainey 2008 or 1990?
 * Done. The correct year is 1990. Bede735 (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * FN407: publication title should be italicized
 * Done. Bede735 (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * What makes CineArtistes a high-quality reliable source?
 * Done. I replaced the reference with one from the official website. Bede735 (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Why include only one author in short cites for Roberts but both for Hanks and Hodges?
 * Done. I added Olson to the Roberts citation. Bede735 (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Be consistent in whether state names are abbreviated or spelled out in full
 * Done. Bede735 (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Since Lulu is a self-publishing company, what makes Reid a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * None of the major biographies covers this. The citation was for a note that was not necessary for the article, so I removed the note and reference. Bede735 (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you,, for doing the source review. Regards, Bede735 (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS
Lots of things seem to have been overlooked here.....


 * Lead
 * "known for his natural, authentic, and understated acting style and screen performances" is puffery and fancruft
 * "He was a major movie star"..... prominent
 * I understand what "he portrayed more mature characters" is trying to say, but "mature" isn't really neutral
 * Friendships and partners aren't really necessary to include
 * Focus on the Academy Awards Cooper won and nix the nominations he lost
 * No mention of him winning a Golden Globe for Best Actor in Friendly Persuasion?


 * Early life
 * Remove the comma after "English immigrants"
 * I removed the comma. Bede735 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "Despite a promising first eighteen months at Grinnell, he left college suddenly in February 1924"..... not sure if "promising" is a good term to use


 * Career
 * Silent films, 1925–28
 * "Risky" from "risky stunt work" doesn't seem like a good word choice
 * "first important film role" is POV
 * "was a major success"..... critically or commercially?
 * "held out for a better deal" reads awkwardly
 * "the first film to win an Academy Award for Best Picture"..... is this for Children of Divorce or Wings?
 * I rephrased the sentence. Bede735 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Something doesn't feel right about starting a sentence with "still" followed by a comma
 * I removed the word. Bede735 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Cooper's acting skills improved" is POV
 * "It became one of the most commercially successful films of 1928"..... how much did it gross?


 * Hollywood stardom, 1929–35
 * See note in lead regarding "major movie star"
 * How is "One of the high points of Cooper's early career" encyclopedic?
 * I changed this to "One of the more important performances in Cooper's early career ..." Bede735 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "good foods" in "taught him about good food and vintage wines" isn't neutral
 * Something doesn't feel right about "one of his most ambitious and challenging dramatic roles"
 * How can one's performance be "intense"?
 * "revealed his genuine ability to do light comedy" isn't really encyclopedic
 * "Cooper changed his name legally in August 1933"..... it's best to explicitly mention here the name he legally took on
 * I added "to Gary Cooper". Bede735 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "adorable girl" is POV
 * Try to give a more definitive statement than "who may have been put off"
 * I altered the wording. Bede735 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "most popular and successful adventure films"..... again, be specific as to whether this is commercial or critical success


 * American folk hero, 1936–43
 * This section is uncomfortably long to read and should be divided into subsections
 * I added subsections. Bede735 (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "The year 1936 marked an important turning point in Cooper's career" is simply inappropriate tone
 * "an innocent, sweet-natured writer" is POV
 * "For his performance in Mr. Deeds, Cooper received his first Academy Award nomination for Best Actor"..... include who he lost to
 * "A critical and box-office disappointment"..... a more neutral way to say this would be "critically and commercially unsuccessful"
 * I replaced the word "disappointment". Bede735 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "a weak screenplay" is POV
 * "biggest failure to that date"..... critically or commercially?
 * Is "major" in "turned down several major roles" the best word choice?
 * I changed it to "important". Bede735 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "clever screenplay" is POV
 * "shallow philanderer" is not encyclopedic
 * "sweet-natured rodeo cowboy" is POV
 * I don't see how "what could have been a fine vehicle for Cooper" is encyclopedic
 * Is "Cooper's fourth straight box-office failure" saying fourth consecutive box office failure? If so, I'd use that term in place.
 * I made this change. Bede735 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Not convinced "daring" from "daring English brothers" is needed
 * "magnificent sets" is not neutral
 * "The film received good reviews"..... positive reviews is more encyclopedic
 * I made this change. Bede735 (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure "heroic actions" is neutral
 * New York Post is unreliable, so I'd remove its review
 * "Cooper finished up the year"..... concluded is more encyclopedic
 * I made this change. Bede735 (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "now commonly called "Lou Gehrig's disease'" is unnecessary and "now commonly called" is not encyclopedic
 * Who did Cooper lose his Best Actor Oscar nominations for The Pride of the Yankees and For Whom the Bell Tolls to?
 * "Cooper did not serve in the military during World War II due to his age and health"..... what specifically about his age and health kept him from joining?


 * Mature roles, 1944–52
 * This section's title isn't really neutral
 * "he's" from "he's about to marry another woman" should be "he is" per WP:CONTRACTIONS
 * I made this change. Bede735 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "Cooper's most important film" is POV
 * "understated" from "Cooper's understated performance was widely praised" isn't really needed, and I'm not sure it's the best term to use anyway


 * Later films, 1953–61
 * "Despite its beautiful cinematography" is POV
 * "Cooper was more effective playing" reads awkwardly and doesn't seem neutral
 * Who did Cooper lose his Golden Globe nomination for Friendly Persuasion to?
 * See above note from "American folk hero" regarding "good reviews"
 * "made three unusual films" is POV


 * Personal life
 * Marriage and family
 * It would help to include a year for when Cooper met Rocky
 * I included the year. Bede735 (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No need to mention where Rocky grew up or her education
 * Not sure if mentioning Rocky's stepfather or "Athletic and a lover of the outdoors, Rocky shared many of Cooper's interests, including riding, skiing, and skeet-shooting" is really needed
 * I'm skeptical about including "patient" in "By all accounts, Cooper was a patient and affectionate father"
 * "Sharing many of her parents' interests, she accompanied them on their travels and was often photographed with them. Like her father, she developed a love for art and drawing." can be scrapped


 * Romantic relationships
 * Much of this seems like simply a list of women he was with. While people like Clara Bow and Patricia Neal are certainly worth mentioning, but not sure how many of them are needed.
 * What is "worldly" in "worldly actress" supposed to mean?
 * I removed the word. Bede735 (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "which was the most important romance of his early life" gives no detail on its impact and I'm not convinced its tone is very encyclopedic or neutral


 * Friendships, interests, and character
 * This entire section is completely superfluous and should be scrapped entirely


 * Religion
 * "many of his friends believed he had a deeply spiritual side"..... no quotes or commentary from these friends?
 * These two paragraphs are best merged per MOS:PARAGRAPHS, which discourages really short paragraphs


 * Final year and death
 * Don't need the day of week for when he died


 * Acting style and reputation
 * Is "essential" in "three essential characteristics" the best word choice?


 * Career assessment and legacy
 * See note in lead and "Hollywood stardom" sections regarding "major movie star"

Sorry, but this is not FA material and I must oppose; many excessive details (particularly in the "personal life" section), prose is not up to par, and it reads like a fansite. Snuggums (talk / edits) 09:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with most of the points made above by Snuggums, and so, it would seem, do the other experienced editors, above, who have supported the nomination. Some of these editors have considerable experience at FAC, having between them taken more than seventy articles through FAC to promotion to FA, and with the greatest respect to Snuggums, who, to be fair, I see has managed that achievement once, I suggest that their collective and individual judgement may conceivably be worth taking into account. A few of Snuggums's individual comments bear consideration (the point about WP:CONTRACTIONS is technically correct) but a remark such as his opening comment "known for his natural, authentic, and understated acting style and screen performances" is puffery and fancruft is nonsense. The statement correctly reflects what is in the main text, and what is in the main text is a fair and correct representation of what the sources say: I can say this with confidence, having looked at the two sources from which the statement is constructed while doing my spot-check, above, from which I still have my notes to hand. I could go on (Risky from risky stunt work doesn't seem like a good word choice – yes it does; good foods in taught him about good food and vintage wines isn't neutral – yes it is; an innocent, sweet-natured writer" is POV – no it isn't; shallow philanderer is not encyclopedic – yes it is. And so on and on) but I just note that most of Snuggums's points have not troubled those supporting the promotion, and I suggest that a polite acknowledgment of them is all that is required, rather than any action. –  Tim riley  talk    11:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, for all your time and help with this article. Sincerely, Bede735 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Snuggums makes a few points worth considering:
 * I'd clarify that it was Wings that won the first Best Picture Academy Award, e.g. "the latter being the first film..." etc
 * I made this change. Bede735 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I would delete "Still" in: "Still, with each new film..."
 * I made this change. Bede735 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that the "folk hero" section (2,300 words) might benefit from some subdivision, and would consider this, but I would not insist.
 * I subdivided the section. Bede735 (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't use the phrase "innocent, sweet-natured" twice, for two different characters in two different films. I'd find a synonymous phrase for one of them.
 * I rephrased one of the descriptions. Bede735 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Cooper's first production compamy, "International Pictures" was formed in 1944. It's not mentioned after 1946 – what happened to it? We are only told that he formed a new company, Baroda Productions, in 1959. (Snuggums didn't raise this, but I picked it up)
 * The last sentence of that paragraph reads, "It was also International's biggest financial success during its brief history before being sold off to Universal Studios in 1946." I would need to research its history as part of Universal. The Universal Studios Wikipedia article indicates that Independent Pictures was merged into a new entity, United World Pictures, which failed within a year. There are no sources provided for that section. I'll add a note to capture that history if I can find a good source. Bede735 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There may be a few passages that could be trimmed without detriment to the article, but I strongly disagrre that the whole "Friendships, interests, and character" section needs deleting. It gives us some essential insights into the character of the man, which informs our general reading.
 * In the main I disagree with Snuggums in his interpretation of what is POV and what is not, but it might be worth checking to see if there are a few cases where a specific attribution to a source might help.
 * I will go through the article again with this in mind. Bede735 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Some of Snuggums's suggested alternative words are worth considering. However, many of his comments – saying that certain phrasing is "inappropriate", or "reads awkwardly", etc,  are personal viewpoints, from which the main editors are entitled to differ.  I certainly didn't perceive inappropriateness or awkwardness in the passages thus described.  Snuggums's final judgement on the article is unjust; while all prose is susceptible to improvement, to say that the article reads  like a "fansite"  is absurd. Brianboulton (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, for your guidance. Sincerely, Bede735 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  16:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.